Lumberyard

[Urbanized]

I think saturation is a consideration, but this looks like it would have been a new option for downtown. I think the real threat could be building a lot of the same thing at this point, which we may be seeing (though demand seems to be keeping up). However, an owner occupied or even just a luxury high rise option would expand the market and possibly attract a new type of downtown resident that want to live downtown, but is not currently not interested in what's available. 3 or 4 of these would be a bad idea at this point. 1 or 2 is probably doable, imo. Regency seems to do well and it's kind of shabby. And even the Classen does very well and, honestly, it falls short on its promise of "luxury". A new building with well kept amenities and quality services would probably have no problem maintaining a good occupancy rate.

Agree with that too. A development like this would really only have the effective impact of two Edges or similar developments, and I don't think we would worry about those for a second. I think we're far from saturated.

JTF makes interesting points about new suburban housing subtracting value from existing suburban neighborhoods (which would be amplified in a city without positive population growth), while new urban actually adds to the appeal of the existing urban. In 20+ years of downtown advocacy I had never thought about it in those terms (personally I don't like pitting urban vs. suburban), but I think that point actually makes a lot of sense.

That doesn't of course change the fact that supply CAN exceed demand (will probably never happen in downtown OKC due to the fact that we effectively started at zero).

[Plutonic Panda]

OKC is far from any "overbuilding". We have space-a-plenty. If this developer is an ( Outside ) group, then his concern is purely ROI and 40 stories helps secure that. It becomes the place to be, thus values will remain steady for each unit. This complex brings its own "self-contained environment" of Large / High End / Mixed-use / Destination point and would thrive. On the Blvd, Highly Visible to all.


If the developer is local, then this project will most likely be scaled back or cut due to ( tight financing / short leash ) approach.

agreed

[Plutonic Panda]

It could be a cool location, if there weren't that big fat bifurcating expressway masquerading as a boulevard. Otherwise, it would have great access to bricktown, the arena, the park, CBD, and the street car. I'm not sure where the final designs are on the boulevard, but some serious pedestrian issues are going to pop up if developers really are interested in doing things like this on the south side of the artery.

I liked the BLVD in the rendering. We need to make sure we have the infrastructure to handle this and make it more attractive to developers.

[catch22]

I hate the Boulevard design more than anyone else, but if you put enough people around it, and at least give the pedestrian a chance, (Long timed crosswalks, strict enforcement of people blocking the crosswalk while queuing, etc.) people will still walk, provided there are destinations on either side of it.

Plenty of examples around the world of very wide 4-6 lane streets working in an urban environment, where people still have good crossing ability. While not ideal, it can be done, and something of this scale would provide enough people on one side, where you can balance it out some.

People will not cross the street if there is nothing on the other side worth doing. That's just common sense.

[OKCisOK4me]

Oh well. Maybe this same firm can do real renderings for the Stage Center tower site.

[Plutonic Panda]

I understand. We need to make sure we build the new BLVD. to entice and handle large scale developments so we do get amazing developments on both sides of the street.

[catch22]

I hate the Boulevard design more than anyone else, but if you put enough people around it, and at least give the pedestrian a chance, (Long timed crosswalks, strict enforcement of people blocking the crosswalk while queuing, etc.) people will still walk, provided there are destinations on either side of it.

Plenty of examples around the world of very wide 4-6 lane streets working in an urban environment, where people still have good crossing ability. While not ideal, it can be done, and something of this scale would provide enough people on one side, where you can balance it out some.

People will not cross the street if there is nothing on the other side worth doing. That's just common sense.

I will clarify this statement some more.

The Boulevard as is currently designed would not be a barrier, only if we had several large developments such as this one (unlikely) on the south side, to balance the heavy weight of activity north of the Boulevard. Basically, you need enough "demand" on either side, to neutral out the negatives that the less walkable boulevard presents. Something of this scale, could overcome that deficit, for that area; specifically.

[PhiAlpha]

I hate the Boulevard design more than anyone else, but if you put enough people around it, and at least give the pedestrian a chance, (Long timed crosswalks, strict enforcement of people blocking the crosswalk while queuing, etc.) people will still walk, provided there are destinations on either side of it.

Plenty of examples around the world of very wide 4-6 lane streets working in an urban environment, where people still have good crossing ability. While not ideal, it can be done, and something of this scale would provide enough people on one side, where you can balance it out some.

People will not cross the street if there is nothing on the other side worth doing. That's just common sense.

Canal Street in New Orleans comes to mind. 6 lanes of traffic with massive sidewalks, retail on either side, and a big median with the streetcar running through it. Is it the most awesome urban street in the world? No, but it works pretty well.

[Just the facts]

Wide high speed streets are the exact same physical barrier to walking as a river, ravine, or cliff is. For example - from Western to Penn there are 14 spans across the Oklahoma River a pedestrian could use but only 10 ways across I-40 so in the instance I-40 is a BIGGER barrier than the river.

[Teo9969]

Wide high speed streets are the exact same physical barrier to walking as a river, ravine, or cliff is. For example - from Western to Penn there are 14 spans across the Oklahoma River a pedestrian could use but only 10 ways across I-40 so in the instance I-40 is a BIGGER barrier than the river.

Comparing a 45MPH at most BLVD to a 70 MPH Interstate Highway is about as disingenuous as it gets.

9 de Julio in Buenos Aires is about as wide from one side to the other as the Oklahoma River, might see more cars go through it in 2.4 hours than that section of I-40 sees in 24 hours, and has people all over the street.

Walkability is about a lot of things, but it ultimately boils down to 2 things: 1. Do I have somewhere to go (the most important thing) and 2. Do I have the infrastructure to get there efficiently by foot.

And despite the bent of many on this forum to be anti-all-things-vehicle, people need to get to a point where they can at least admit the possibility that high traffic roads play a part in place making, which is far and away the most important issue in development.

If NW Expressway had a reasonably sized median (10 feet), and all the buildings from Classen to Council were setback no more than 20-30 feet , it would be one of the most walkable streets in the city...

[Mississippi Blues]

What amazes me the most is that even with this appearing to be fantasy and having no legs behind it, it doesn't detract from the development of OKC. There's so much going on throughout OKC that you don't really see this as a lost opportunity, but rather a sign of things to come.

[Just the facts]

Comparing a 45MPH at most BLVD to a 70 MPH Interstate Highway is about as disingenuous as it gets.

Do you know the % chance of death of being hit by a car going 45 mph vs. 70 mph? Answer - hardly any. At 45 mph the chance of death is 90%.

http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/enfo..._behaviors.cfm

[bchris02]

Comparing a 45MPH at most BLVD to a 70 MPH Interstate Highway is about as disingenuous as it gets.

9 de Julio in Buenos Aires is about as wide from one side to the other as the Oklahoma River, might see more cars go through it in 2.4 hours than that section of I-40 sees in 24 hours, and has people all over the street.

Walkability is about a lot of things, but it ultimately boils down to 2 things: 1. Do I have somewhere to go (the most important thing) and 2. Do I have the infrastructure to get there efficiently by foot.

And despite the bent of many on this forum to be anti-all-things-vehicle, people need to get to a point where they can at least admit the possibility that high traffic roads play a part in place making, which is far and away the most important issue in development.

If NW Expressway had a reasonably sized median (10 feet), and all the buildings from Classen to Council were setback no more than 20-30 feet , it would be one of the most walkable streets in the city...

Agree 100%.

[catch22]

Do you know the % chance of death of being hit by a car going 45 mph vs. 70 mph? Answer - hardly any. At 45 mph the chance of death is 90%.

SRTS Guide: Identifying Unsafe Behaviors

That is true, but that is simply not a fair comparison when talking about walkability.

Your 45mph street will (hopefully) have on street parking, trees, and stop lights. A proper comparison would be number of pedestrians hit on a 45mph vs a 70 mph street. But, the data is skewed for that comparison because the only 70 mph streets are interstates with no sidewalks. And 45 mph streets have sidewalks (or should). So even that comparison's data would lead to a 70mph interstate being safer for pedestrians. (Due to the fact of their being very few pedestrian deaths along interstates)

There is just no comparing highways to arterial streets, and any and all data to compare the two is skewed. Apples and oranges.

[Just the facts]

Hold on - I wasn't comparing OKC Boulevard to I-40 - I compared I-40 walkability to the Oklahoma River walkability in my example. It is easier for a pedestrian to cross the Oklahoma River than it is I-40. Doesn't everyone agree with that? If not, maybe someone can explain how crossing I-40 is easier than crossing the Oklahoma River.

However, if we want to compare I-40 and OKC Blvd, all of the pedestrian crossing on I-40 are grade separated from I-40. Every crossing on OKC Blvd will be at-grade. Which is safer?

[catch22]

They are equally safe from a pedestrian-data stance since no cars go on or along the river, and no people walk on the interstate.

[Plutonic Panda]

Comparing a 45MPH at most BLVD to a 70 MPH Interstate Highway is about as disingenuous as it gets.

9 de Julio in Buenos Aires is about as wide from one side to the other as the Oklahoma River, might see more cars go through it in 2.4 hours than that section of I-40 sees in 24 hours, and has people all over the street.

Walkability is about a lot of things, but it ultimately boils down to 2 things: 1. Do I have somewhere to go (the most important thing) and 2. Do I have the infrastructure to get there efficiently by foot.

And despite the bent of many on this forum to be anti-all-things-vehicle, people need to get to a point where they can at least admit the possibility that high traffic roads play a part in place making, which is far and away the most important issue in development.

If NW Expressway had a reasonably sized median (10 feet), and all the buildings from Classen to Council were setback no more than 20-30 feet , it would be one of the most walkable streets in the city...

This has to be one of the most reasonable well though out post regarding this issue I've seen. You said what I've been trying to say on here for a year now. Great post!

[AP]

I don't think it is fair to try and make a comparison between Oklahoma City and Buenos Aires. Just because it works there doesn't mean it will work here. You're talking about totally different cultures and mindsets toward walking. What is the speed limit on Classen? There are plenty of places to walk to on Classen but do you ever see people doing that? I just have a hard time agreeing that people will be enticed to walk more just because you put the buildings closer to the road.

[Teo9969]

Do you know the % chance of death of being hit by a car going 45 mph vs. 70 mph? Answer - hardly any. At 45 mph the chance of death is 90%.

SRTS Guide: Identifying Unsafe Behaviors

tertiary point to the discussion at hand…Of course you're not going to survive a car hitting you at 45 MPH. Furthermore, I wasn't advocating for a 45 MPH road here…but that's the absolute most the road would be. (It will likely be 25 to 35)

There are no statistics for this, but common sense tells us that the percentage chance of getting hit on a road full of 70 MPH cars than that same road full of 45 MPH cars is obscenely higher…that's why there aren't sidewalks on interstates, and why trying to compare a boulevard to an Interstate is disingenuous. Of course I-40 is a barrier…but you can make no rational argument that comparing the Boulevard with I-40 is apples to oranges, let alone apples to apples. It's only a barrier if it's not well planned (see NW Expressway or Memorial).

[catch22]

I don't think it is fair to try and make a comparison between Oklahoma City and Buenos Aires. Just because it works there doesn't mean it will work here. You're talking about totally different cultures and mindsets toward walking. What is the speed limit on Classen? There are plenty of places to walk to on Classen but do you ever see people doing that? I just have a hard time agreeing that people will be enticed to walk more just because you put the buildings closer to the road.

I agree with you. But I would argue that, you have to have large densities on either side, to overcome the wide street.

To use your example, Classen: If the east side of Classen (we'll say for a block or two around 16th street) had several very large apartment complexes (Metropolitan, Edge, etc.) and the west side had a few large apartment complexes. And on either side, you had several bars, several restaurants, and several retail shops/commercial services. The demand to walk in the area would overcome the wide street. That wide street wouldn't matter, people would walk across.

As it is now, there's nothing to note on either side. And no reason to cross, or even walk on either side.

[Just the facts]

It's only a barrier if it's not well planned (see NW Expressway or Memorial).

I agree 100% but last I heard ODOT was planning for a 45 mph speed limit, on a road with a design speed of 60 mph. If anyone is going to build residential adjacent to the Blvd the speed limit is going to have to drop to 25 mph, and it will help if the road is designed to feel un-safe for driving above 25 mph.

[catch22]

I agree 100% but last I heard ODOT was planning for a 45 mph speed limit, on a road with a design speed of 60 mph.

I've kind of given up on this. Let them build it. When the old way of thinking retires, we'll have a large ROW to work with to install light rail down the middle (or streetcar), and get some bike lanes going.

[Teo9969]

I agree 100% but last I heard ODOT was planning for a 45 mph speed limit, on a road with a design speed of 60 mph. If anyone is going to build residential adjacent to the Blvd the speed limit is going to have to drop to 25 mph, and it will help if the road is designed to feel un-safe for driving above 25 mph.

If the Boulevard is a success, cars won't be able to travel 45 MPH even if that's the limit…It's not easy to get up to 45 MPH on NW Expressway during rush hour.

I'm going to bet 35MPH is the limit between Classen and it's Eastern terminus.

[Teo9969]

I don't think it is fair to try and make a comparison between Oklahoma City and Buenos Aires. Just because it works there doesn't mean it will work here. You're talking about totally different cultures and mindsets toward walking. What is the speed limit on Classen? There are plenty of places to walk to on Classen but do you ever see people doing that? I just have a hard time agreeing that people will be enticed to walk more just because you put the buildings closer to the road.

You don't see people doing it 1. Because there's not as much to go to as you think and you missed point 2. There's not the infrastructure to walk EFFICIENTLY. The people who walk Classen do so because they have no other choice, or they're just bored.

[Just the facts]

I agree 100% but last I heard ODOT was planning for a 45 mph speed limit, on a road with a design speed of 60 mph. If anyone is going to build residential adjacent to the Blvd the speed limit is going to have to drop to 25 mph, and it will help if the road is designed to feel un-safe for driving above 25 mph.

I've kind of given up on this. Let them build it. When the old way of thinking retires, we'll have a large ROW to work with to install light rail down the middle (or streetcar), and get some bike lanes going.

You know - the 'give up and do it right later' strategy sounds better all the time.